Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     Smell of Alcohol in Post-Mortem Insufficient to Establish Intoxication: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Liability of Insurance Company in Motor Accident Case    |     No Grounds for Transfer: Free Bus Fare for Women in Telangana Reduces Travel Burden: Telangana High Court Rejects Wife's Petition to Transfer Divorce Case    |    

Delhi High Court Upholds Constitutionality Validity of Section 5(v) of HMA, 1955; Rejects Plea Challenging Prohibition of Marriage Between Sapindas”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court today upheld the constitutionality of Section 5(v) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), which prohibits marriages between sapindas, unless sanctioned by custom. The judgment was passed in the case of W.P.(C) 910/2024, where the petitioner, Neetu Grover, challenged the section citing its violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

The bench, comprising the Acting Chief Justice and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, observed, “The Petitioner seeks to challenge Section 5(v) of the HMA Act on the ground that though her marriage with her distant cousin Mr. Gagan Grover was consensual, he has abdicated his responsibilities towards the Petitioner and her son by taking recourse to the impugned Section.” The Court noted the presumption in favor of the constitutionality of statutes enacted by the Parliament and emphasized that a statute can be declared unconstitutional only under specific established grounds.

In dismissing the petition, the Court remarked, “We are of the considered opinion that, no tenable grounds in law for challenging the said impugned provision have been placed before this Court during arguments or pleaded in the petition.”

The petitioner had argued that the impugned Section was violative of Article 14 as it denied her the right to be in a valid marriage with Mr. Gagan Grover, her distant cousin, due to the lack of proof of custom in her community. However, the Court found that the Petitioner’s marriage fell within the prohibited category of sapindas as recognized under the HMA and was not saved by any exception of custom or usage.

Further, the Court held, “This Court is unable to accept the contention of the Petitioner that the impugned section is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as the exception in the impugned Section is only for marriages between persons on the basis of custom having force of law, which requires stringent proof and its existence is to be adjudicated upon by Court of law.”

Date of Decision: 22nd January, 2024

NEETU GROVER VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

 

Similar News